Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[WorkingClassRugger]

Not sure exactly what you are suggesting, but while Fox have the rights to live coverage of the whole of Super rugby, I can't see them gifting one game per week to 10 or any other FTA (if that's what you're suggesting). And nor should they. Replays after the game has finished or the next day would be a good outcome.

Not talkiNg about Super Rugby. I was referring to the NRC following up on my Ten comment relating to it a little further up the page.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not talkiNg about Super Rugby. I was referring to the NRC following up on my Ten comment relating to it a little further up the page.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Reckon Roy Masters had tears in his eyes as he wrote this:

"Rugby union's eternal boast of its worldwide popularity has paid off for Australia, rescuing the code here from insolvency......."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...bbitohs-star-greg-inglis-20150219-13j9ab.html

None of my business but if the numbers are accurate I'm with @Pfitzy on the Warathas 2016 thread in saying don't waste it chasing yet another leaguie who may or may not be a good short-term buy, invest it in things like NRC first & rebuild your game from the ground up.

 

[Wilson]

There not necessarily mutually exclusive targets. If Inglis can be picked up for a season on his way over seas it may be at a (relative) discount, as the time in rugby here could increase his profile and value in Europe. Even ignoring that, if it's seen as a marketing purchase as much as anything else it can be an effective use of the money. It has to be clear where this money is coming from and what it's for though.

That said I agree that first thoughts should be to the NRC and ensuring it's future and attempting to separate the codes income from the occasional windfalls of the B&I lions or a world cup hosting. It's potentially a lot of money though so a well timed pick-up from league would help draw the attention of lost and new fans, that if we're prepared, we can hold onto.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ didn't seem to work with Wendall, Lote, Matt Rogers, Mark Gasnier et al, all of whom were happy to take rugby's money then go back to league when it ran out (& then go on The Footy Show to, as Peter Fitz put it IIRC "piss on the jersey that fed them") & remains to be seen if it'll work with Izzy.

Like mum used to say when dishing out the pocket money, don't spend it all at once 'cos there ain't no more til next week (or 5 years in the case of SANZAR broadcast rights deals) & put at least some of it in your piggy bank.

 

[Bairdy]

Reckon Roy Masters had tears in his eyes as he wrote this:

"Rugby union's eternal boast of its worldwide popularity has paid off for Australia, rescuing the code here from insolvency..."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...bbitohs-star-greg-inglis-20150219-13j9ab.html

None of my business but if the numbers are accurate I'm with @Pfitzy on the Warathas 2016 thread in saying don't waste it chasing yet another leaguie who may or may not be a good short-term buy, invest it in things like NRC first & rebuild your game from the ground up.

This is the ARU we're talking about here........
Recruiting league backs is more important than retaining players in areas of weakness.

 

[Pfitzy]

FFS Inglis is mentioned thrice, including the title! Mostly supposition on his involvement and discussion on TV rights.

(Incidentally, GI's manager is Alan Gainey - his Dad Les was the bloke who owned the farm my family bought back in 77).

As I've said elsewhere: with the departure of several top line contracts and a new TV deal, now is the time for the ARU to correct they mistakes of the past, and start toning down player salaries a little and putting more into the foundations.

Getting the NRC into a split deal with Fox Sports and Ten should be step 1. ARU money helps lift the standard of competition, which the networks will then seriously look at.

 

[wamberal]

The single best thing the ARU could do is to put a full-time lobbyist to work at the IRB headquarters, to try to make them understand the importance of streamlining the game, and making the Laws easier to referee and for the casual viewer to understand.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^ yeah, nah, the full time lobbyist should be based at ARU HQ & be tasked with, among other things, eliminating any media reference to NRC being "3rd tier", which to most people who aren't rusted-on footy freaks is the same as "3rd rate"

Shoulder tapping the movers & shakers with rugby backgrounds to steer a few more sponsorship $ (whether actual or in kind) rugby's way should also be right up there. Lobbying World Rugby to change the laws to attract a potential Aussie fan-base that probably doesn't even exist is just a waste of money.

 

[TOCC]

So there is talk the new deal is worth as much as $45million per season, if people look back to mid last year suggestions the ARU were targeting a deal of $35-40million per season were ridiculed and many expected the new deal to come in closer to $30million...

It should be noted that rugby in Australia at all levels was accruing multi million losses each year so this deal is needed just to make ends meet. Another boost is the falling $AUD which has directly contributed to the ARU posting $million losses in the past, at its current rate it will mean a boost of $4-8million per season...



So all in all, financial Armageddon has been avoided but this isn't an excuse to now start spending big again, I think the financial savings implemented should be retained and maybe a little bit more directed into the NRC and increase grants to super rugby teams by $1.5million.

 

[Wilson]

^^^^^^^^ didn't seem to work with Wendall, Lote, Matt Rogers, Mark Gasnier et al, all of whom were happy to take rugby's money then go back to league when it ran out (& then go on The Footy Show to, as Peter Fitz put it IIRC "piss on the jersey that fed them") & remains to be seen if it'll work with Izzy.

Like mum used to say when dishing out the pocket money, don't spend it all at once 'cos there ain't no more til next week (or 5 years in the case of SANZAR broadcast rights deals) & put at least some of it in your piggy bank.

Certainly, most of those signings were made with out much thought as to the purpose beyond splashing cash and being seen to spend, and I'd hate to see that done again. That's not to say there isn't value in buying Inglis if the situation is right, I'm fairly sure there are figures showing that Folau has been worth 2 or 3 times what the ARU paid him in marketing so far. The important thing here is that it has to serve a purpose beyond taking a shiny new toy off of league.

 

[TOCC]

I would love to see Inglis in the code, he is my favourites rugby league player and probably the most talented there of either code.... but he will be reasonably old by the time he would join rugby union so I don't think he will be around long enough to repay the investment..

2 years ago = yes, 1 years time = no

Retaining players like Kurtley and Quade should be a higher priority.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

The single best thing the ARU could do is to put a full-time lobbyist to work at the IRB headquarters, to try to make them understand the importance of streamlining the game, and making the Laws easier to referee and for the casual viewer to understand.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm fairly sure there are figures showing that Folau has been worth 2 or 3 times what the ARU paid him in marketing so far.

Really?
Where would I find those?
That's a shit load of extra bums on seats that would have been empty but for him and additional foxtel subscriptions (which don't go to the ARU directly) attributable only to him.
I havent met a single person - including league followers - who has bought a ticket or subscription based on Folau playing rugby.
Nearly all of them see it as a joke that he could walk straight into the supposedly toughest provincial rugby comp in the world with no background in the game and that's the full extent of their level of interest.

 

[Omar Comin']

I'd guess any figures would be referring to the value of the media coverage he's generated.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'd guess any figures would be referring to the value of the media coverage he's generated.

Unless it translates into bums on seats or subscriptions how is that value (to rugby) measured?
Love to know if any real cost/benefit analysis is undertaken before falling over ourselves to sign these blokes.

 

[Wilson]

Really?
Where would I find those?
That's a shit load of extra bums on seats that would have been empty but for him and additional foxtel subscriptions (which don't go to the ARU directly) attributable only to him.
I havent met a single person - including league followers - who has bought a ticket or subscription based on Folau playing rugby.
Nearly all of them see it as a joke that he could walk straight into the supposedly toughest provincial rugby comp in the world with no background in the game and that's the full extent of their level of interest.

Media exposure and value to sponsors:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...-for-rugby-union/story-fnii0ksb-1226911064168

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I missed the paragraph where the improvement in the ARUs bottom line (which in the period under discussion in the article was the opposite of improvement)was identified and attributed to folau.
And the recently mooted increased broadcast deal seems to have been driven by a bidding war in Europe.
My reading of that would not justify media exposure "and" value to sponsors: the increased media exposure increases the value to sponsors.

 

[Wilson]

That's the other part of it, it's only worth making a large signing motivated by marketing potential if the ARU a ready to take advantage of it. I'm not saying Inglis should be chased straight up, there is plenty to sort out first to really get the benefit out of the signing, but he's not available until 2017 and there's always going to be some turnover in the top level roster with departures to France and Japan, so there's plenty of room to gain from it.

As far as increasing value to sponsors, it may not be direct cash in hand for the ARU but attracting 'high value' sponsorship is one of the few things rugby has generally been able to do right in Australia, improvements to what sponsors get for their dollar are not for nothing.

 

[TOCC]

ARU shouldn't entertain signing the likes of Inglis if we are losing the likes of Quade, Kepu and Foley...

Get your own house in order first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk